Female Dress and "Slavic" Bow Fibulae in Greece Io3
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
HESPERIA 74 (2OO5) FEMALE DRESS AND i o Pages i-146 "SLAVIC" BOW FIBULAE IN GREECE ABSTRACT an Long considered "index fossil" for the migration of the Slavs to Greece, "Slavic" bow fibulae have never been understood in relation to female dress. con The "exotic" character of their decoration has encouraged speculations cerning the ethnic attribution of these artifacts, but no serious attempt has were been made to analyze the archaeological contexts inwhich they found. It is argued here that bow fibulae were more than just dress accessories, and that they may have been used for negotiating social power. The political and A.D. military situation of the early seventh century in the Balkans, marked by the collapse of the early Byzantine power in the region, may explain the need for new emblemic to styles represent group identity. Petr Bogatyrev has written that "in order to grasp the social function of we as costumes, must learn to read them signs in the same way we learn to read and understand different languages."1 What Bogatyrev had in mind was the function of the folk costume inMoravian Slovakia, but his remark 83. l.Bogatyrevl971,p. to may well apply archaeological approaches to the meaning of dress. Ar 2. As Hubert Fehr 312 (2001, pp. in chaeologists working the medieval history of Eastern Europe currently 402) shows, by 1930, Tracht had already as costume not as in understand dress (Tracht), In replaced Kleidung German archaeo apparel (Kleidung). doing in follow the German who advocated logical discourse. This shift emphasis so, they archaeologist Joachim Werner, is due to the work of Hans as as as a largely early 1950 the idea of "national costume" key concept for reading the first to use the Zeiss, archaeologist ethnicity in material culture.2 Werner viewed dress accessories found in costume notion of for the study of eth as as female burials "national attributes" and cultural traits particularly useful nicity through material culture. How for the identification of medieval ethnic groups. ever, it was Joachim Werner who im early a The of dress is a form of social where posed the idea of "national costume" meaning knowledge, messages serves in the archaeology of the earlyMiddle become "naturalized" in appearance.3 Because clothing to convey See also Fehr seen as a or a Ages. 2002, pp. 180,189, information, dress may be symbolic "text" "message," visual 196-198. means of communicating ideas and values.4 One important aspect of the 3. Sorensen 1991, p. 122. See also communicative symbolism of dress is its capacity for providing locative DeLong 1987; Blanc 1989. information, either to the individual's location in 4. Pancake 1991, p. 46. See also referring physical space or to his or her within the social network. Dress a Maertens 1978; Bogatyrev 1986; position has distinct Sorensen 124-143. transmits a to a 2000, pp. referent and clear message defined target population about American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Hesperia ® www.jstor.org I02 FLORIN CURTA as a conscious affiliation and identity. It may be treated form of "emblemic a style," form of nonverbal communication through which doing some a thing in certain way communicates information about relative identity.5 Because itmarks and maintains boundaries, emblemic style should be dis on tinguishable archaeologically the evidence of uniformity within those boundaries' realms of function. Recent anthropological studies have dem at re onstrated that emblemic styles appear the critical junctures in the gional political economy, when changing social relations would impel dis plays of group identity.6 Werner produced the first classification of bow fibulae in Eastern Europe and attached the label "Slavic" to this class of artifacts.7 He di vided his corpus into two classes (I and II), further subdivided on the basis of presumably different terminal lobes, shaped in the form of either a hu man or an on face ("mask") animal head. Werner relied exclusively visual, means mostly intuitive, for the grouping of his large corpus of brooches. The distribution of bow fibulae in Eastern Europe convinced him that the areas as only factor responsible for the spread of this dress accessory in far as was apart Ukraine and Greece the migration of the Slavs. Important were case parts of his theory the ideas that, differently than in the of Ger were worn manic Tracht, Slavic bow fibulae singly, rather than in pairs, and were more that they likely to be found in association with cremations, the supposedly standard burial rite of the early Slavs, than with inhumations.8 A large number ofWerner's "Slavic" bow fibulae had been found prior to World War II in a limited area inMazuria (northeastern Poland), in ar were to rec chaeological assemblages that foreign anything archaeologists as ognized typically "Slavic." Aware that his theory of the Slavic migration not would work with Mazurian brooches, Werner proposed that in this, were as a and only this, case, bow fibulae to be interpreted result of long distance trade between Mazuria and the Lower Danube region, along the so-called Amber Trail.9 In accordance with the widely spread belief that were an mortuary practices indication of status hierarchy, he believed that bow fibulae found inMazurian graves marked the status of the rich "am ber lords" of the North. Werner's ideas have been taken at face value by never many archaeologists and have been seriously questioned. His inter pretation of the "Slavic" bow fibulae is the scholarly standard in many a Eastern European countries in which strong undercurrent of German archaeological tradition is still apparent. I examine, below, the question of whether the presence of "Slavic" can bow fibulae in Greece be explained in terms of migration. The focus on will be the distribution of ornamental patterns and the chronology of the archaeological assemblages in which specimens ofWerner's class I B were manner (Sparta-Linkuhnen) found. The traditional type-variety of material analysis encounters problems when the artifacts discovered do 5. For the notion of "emblemic seeWiessner not exhibit the total expected constellation of attributes. There are, in fact, style," 1983,1989,1990. even 6. 1987;Macdonald no exact of any existing "Slavic" bow fibula, not among speci McLaughlin replicas Earle mens a 1990, p. 53; 1990, pp. 74-75; found together in pairs, circumstance that has considerable impli 1991, p. 12. cations for the of the and distribution of these Byers understanding production 7.Werner 1950,1960. artifacts. some of the recovered are Moreover, specimens fragments, pre 8.Werner 1950, p. 172. a senting only few of the attributes used to define the type. My study 9.Werner 1950, p. 167; 1984b. FEMALE DRESS AND "SLAVIC" BOW FIBULAE IN GREECE IO3 a therefore relies on whole brooches and employs simple form of multi variate analysis that offers the great advantage of avoiding assumptions concerning the distribution of variables. By analyzing the presence of these bow fibulae in early medieval cemeteries and their archaeological contexts, a were more I propose new interpretation, arguing that bow fibulae than just dress accessories and that they may have been used for negotiating social power. ORNAMENTAL PATTERN LINKAGE Werner's class I B, which I have examined elsewhere in greater stylistic most detail,10 is the class represented among "Slavic" bow fibulae found in seven Greece. Out of known specimens, four belong to class I B. The "exotic" character of these artifacts, in terms of both ornamental patterns as to and size, has encouraged speculations their ethnic attribution, includ ing "Eastern Slavic," "barbarian," and Byzantine.11 There has been little as discussion of classification, Werner's criteria have been taken for granted. a narrower I have suggested definition of the class (rebaptized "Vejel Cosoveni") to the exclusion of others?such as Dubovac, unknown loca are now tion (Turkey), and Lezh??that included in the corpus.12 Accord common ing to my proposed definition, members of the I B class have in some or a cov all of the following characteristics: semicircular headplate ered with symmetrical, chip-carved scrollwork featuring two horizontal a seven a a S-spirals and central lozenge; headplate knobs; ribbed bow;13 trapezoidal footplate filled with scrollwork decoration in three panels and more or a flanked by less stylized pairs of bird heads; and terminal lobe in a a the form of human mask.141 have subsequently proposed division of the entire class into two variants with distinct ornamental patterns and a distributions.15 Finally, in thorough study ofWerner's classes IA and B, a Christina Katsougiannopoulou has recently proposed division into five one on variants (one of which has only specimen) the basis of general and ornamental shape patterns.16 There is very little, if any, evidence for the physical copying of any more or existing brooch: despite less strong similarities among the brooches no ofWerner's class I B, exact replication of any is known. The suggestion more or that parts of brooches of other classes may have been reproduced new to less closely in creating I B fibulae points the possibility that each as a brooch may have been produced required, for single occasion. This in his I to in 10. Curta 1994. Werner included class A location Turkey (29), and the spec 11. Slavic:Malingoudis 1986; Stefa gether with the Nea Anchialos brooch imens in the Diergardt (22) and Kof novicov? 353-354. Barbarian: 1997, pp. (13).The Orlea brooch is very differ ler-Truniger collections (26)?also Vida and V?lling 2000, p. 32; Katsou ent, in fact, from the Nea Anchialos have side bows, for which see Curta 1999.